Why do we watchnerds employ particular terms to describe watch brands? Habit – that’s the only reason. We’re accustomed to specific terms and we unthinkingly stick to them; like using a certain brand of toothpaste or laundry detergent.

For example the term ‘independent’ is used to describe brands such as F.P. Journe, Roger Smith, Greubel Forsey and Vianney Halter. Aren’t Patek Philippe and Rolex independent? What about Audemars Piguet, H. Moser, MB&F, Hermes, Chopard, Ressence, HYT, Moritz Grossman – aren’t they all independent? None of them are part of a group. We rarely position the adjective, independent in front of those brands and yet independent they all are.

As well as the sin of laziness (another word for habit in this instance) we should confess to the offense of imprecision which is truly unforgivable considering that people obsessed with precision create the objects of our obsession. We frequently write or say something like Lange is a big group brand or Lange is part of a group. Okay, Lange is part of a group but Lange’s approach to watchmaking is different from that of IWC or Baume et Mercier – both stable mates in the same big group. Saying Lange is part of a group is like labelling Ferrari, which is owned by Fiat or the Volkswagen owned Bentley as big group brands. Do gearheads utilise such sloppy terminology – no, never. They depend on terms that are both descriptive and accurate. Ferrari is a supercar brand. Bentley is a luxury sports car brand.